By Travis Reems
Filed Wednesday, October 11 at 10:56 AM
Last night at the school board meeting, the board was presented an updated general operating budget for the current school year to adjust to actual expenditures the budget that was proposed by the Creg Williams' administration. The adjustments take into account, among other expenditures, shortfalls of $11 million in transportation and $2 million in utility costs. The transportation was under budgeted last year, as well, by over $6 million, and the same budgetary numbers were re-used for this year's budget, which has lead to the shortfall.
Among the miscalculations in transportation was the lack of any funding for mandated transportation of homeless students, which some estimate comprise as much as 20% of the student population at some schools in the district. The under budgeting has created a $3 million hole in the district's budget that takes the already $23 million deficit to $27 million. While there will be a depletion of cash reserves by $754,000, district interim CFO Enos Moss said, "[the district has] plenty of cash to get through the year without taking out a loan."
There were plenty of questions of the district’s staff from the board members, and the outrage came with unanimous support from both the board majority and minority member Ron Jackson. Board member Peter Downs made the observation that, "we have to balance the budget, but we are balancing it on the backs of children," which was received with the rousing support of those in attendance to the meeting. In a bi-lateral move, board members Downs and Jackson made an inquiry for a report from the districts administration for supporting documentation for the new budget. In a comment directed to Superintendent Dr. Diana Bourisaw, member Jackson said, "we got to know the plan."
To ensure that the plan did not include the hiring of an outside consultant, Percy Green was heard to say from the audience several times, "Roberti's not coming back!"
Even though the board had many questions about why the original budget did not include many necessary expenditures and under calculated many others, the updated budget was passed unanimously, with the exception of member Bob Archibald, who was not in attendance at the meeting.
31 Comments:
two reports by Giegerich this week,(one about truancy, the other about budget matters) and today's editorial in the PD kind of add up to a grudging change of tone, or attitude about the mess left behind by Williams. I sense a more ambivalent attitude.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:07:00 PM
I don't understand a couple of points and would appreciate clarification.
The entry states:
"The adjustments take into account, among other expenditures, shortfalls of $11 million in transportation and $2 million in utility costs."
11 + 2 = $13
but yet later on it states:
"The under budgeting has created a $3 million hole in the district's budget that takes the already $23 million deficit to $27 million. "
Is the "$3 million hole" a typo?
If not, then what was cut to swing a $13 million overrun to a $3 million overrun?
Also, regarding the $11 million shortfall in transportation, the entry states:
"The transportation was under budgeted last year, as well, by over $6 million, and the same budgetary numbers were re-used for this year's budget"
If transportation was under-budgeted by over $6 million, the same number was used this year, and we have an $11 million shortfall, does that mean that transportation costs have risen around $5 million over last year?
Thanks
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:50:00 PM
pete:
Thanks for the questions.
Another area with errors was an over budgeting in personnel of over $8 million, which accounts for only being over budget by $3 million and not much, much more.
And there was a lengthy explanation by Deana Anderson, the district's COO, who oversees transportation among other things, about the increase in transportation costs. I am sure I will not be able to capture the full information in my brief response, but the explanation included information about the previous administration not having allotted enough buses to elementary schools and high schools, along with under estimating the needs of the new 9th grade academies.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:13:00 PM
Oh give me a break. Metro is a great school, but hardly the only decent one in the state! I attended a different public school and got into a nationally competitive graduate school program. Snobby statements like that really detract from points you are trying to make. And I'd like to know, from those who complain about the cuts being made, where would you suggest they come from
? Everyone is ready to complain but the fact remains that something will have to go. We have no money, people!
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:59:00 PM
Judy, your comment "Is there ANYONE at 801 N. 11th Street concerned for our children!???" really makes me hopping mad!!!!!!! I worked at 801 for five years. My daughter went to SLPS, and my coworkers children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc. attend SLPS -and not perfect Metro, either. We went though cutbacks at 801 to the point where some people in my dept. were working late every single night and on weekends to do the jobs of the others in our Dept. that were cut, in addition to our own. Do you think for one minute that we did that because we had no other places that we could do volunteer work? We gave up dinners with our families, taking classes, and at times having a meal at all. I know of people who worked all night long several times to meet State deadines. How dare you make that statement, when you know nothing about the people at 801 or what they are up against trying to dig out from under the mess of the past few years! Those of us in poor health from the the working conditions at 801 since Roberti do not deserve your uninformed rudeness. Go find something you actually know something about before you insult people next time.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:43:00 PM
I don't know whether they have fired Floyd Irons, but they should. Do you folk think that you could constantly file lawsuits against your employer and keep your job? If they fire him, maybe these silly lawsuits will go away. He has been super insubordinate. Don't you think? Board members would not have to be in court, and instead could attend to the business of running the school district. Think again..can you file a lawsuit against your employer and remain on the payroll?
As a taxpayer, I am upset that the board has to continue to appear in court and possibly pay costs because of a disgruntled employee. Stop it Floyd!
Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:19:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:29:00 PM
Some points to note:
1. To my knowledge no one at the meeting mentioned staff cuts, but rather that there was an over-estimation of staff in the previous Administration's budget.
2. Some of these numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand or million dollars for simplicity in reporting, and these numbers are from various accounts, such as cash reserves and assets. For example, the $3 million hole is in the current year's budget (annual budget/cash flow worksheet), and the $27 million deficit is in the over-all value of the district (balance sheet). Without giving a 3-month-long introduction into accounting, that is the best brief explanation I can give.
Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:30:00 PM
Folks-Metro is by no means perfect. We are living with the same problems that many other schools are now living with, ie-overcrowded classrooms, lack of staffing, computers that don't work, the list goes on. I think Judy is just very concerned about the situation as a whole for the district, but also is concerned about the school where her own child goes. Keep in mind that Metro is a shining star to this district. It is an example where children from ALL walks of life go and make great achievements academically for themselves, and our district. It is ranked 40th in the nation and this district can't afford to allow this ranking to slip. I'm sure Judy isn't stating we should make improvements to Metro on the backs of any of the other schools, but this district needs the scores these children put out to help keep our PARTIAL accreditation. It IS one of the success stories of our district and we should all be proud of these kids accomplishments, as we should with any school who meets the standards our educational system demands.
Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:42:00 PM
If I remember correctly, the $8 million dollars WAS contributed to staff cuts, at least indirectly. They didn't come right out and state it, but did in a more vague way. The "cuts" are achieved by not replacing retiring staff and those who burn out and leave. Some have also been fired and some "non-retained. Sorry, no firm figures, but I know we have lost a significant number. The Board then moved on fairly quickly.
Someone (Bourisaw? Enos Moss maybe?) tried to justify the staff "cuts" by citing our yearly loss of students. They continue to fail to see (or at least seriously address) that the cycle won't be broken unless they reverse the trend and start increasing staff sizes.
We are "outmanned" big-time by the students, and things are getting rough already. Lots of fights, etc. Not enough staff to man the playgrounds. More little girls are going to be molested or worse. Therefore, more parents pull their kids out. Duh.
The loss of staff is well known to all who work in the schools. I think the largest cuts in personnel have been in secretaries, aides, and other support personnel. Of course class sizes are being maxed out in many cases so there are less teachers, as well.
Our office has had one secretary since last year. It is hell. We have NO teacher's aides that I know of. This is one of, if not the largest, elementary schools in the district. No security guard any more. Every year we lose support personnel.
The Board also warned of upcoming movements and staff adjustments. I'm sorry I don't have the actual quotes in front of me. This is when Peter Downs asked about where do we draw the line on essential needs? and Jackson twisted it into something different. Hell, he began calling for another plan! Maybe we should hire a consultant to tell us the same things we already know!
I love the efforts that some are making, but the stretching of personnel is largely responsible for a large part of our problems. Almost any problem can be traced back to having too many pupils, with too many needs, with too few staff to deal with it all.
Either find some money somewhere St. Louis, or your children's educations will be lost. Put it into ONE THING for now... drastically lower class sizes for all.
NOTHING ELSE YOU TRY WILL WORK IF YOU DON'T DO THIS FIRST!
Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:11:00 PM
Middle class families seem happy with the pull out program at Gateway H.S.
Many don't know about it and bail if their child can't get into Metro.
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:23:00 AM
Wow Jim, that's spoken like a true union rep! :)
I don't know if more aides or security guards or playground monitors are the answer, but I'm all in favor of small class sizes in the early grades (around, say, 18 in grades K-3). What is the typical class size in SLPS elementary schools? DESE says it has hovered around 18 for the past couple of years -- but I know they probably count things differently. Adding staff in response to declining enrollments seems pretty counterintuitive to me, but I think I understand your sentiment. But I don't think the right approach is to say (essentially) "if we don't add more staff, more children will be molested."
Friday, October 13, 2006 9:05:00 AM
Bee-dub,
I am a union official, (not a Rep though) but my beliefs come from my experiences as a teacher.
(By the way, I only speak as an individual on this blog, nothing I might say is Local 420's official position.)
I don't believe in bloated staffs. I do think we need more adults in the schools, however. We have needed more staff for a long time as far as I'm concerned. I also understand that this can be a little wasteful and not the most "efficient" use of money. But I'm not making widgets, I'm educating children and I don't give a damn about "efficiency" when it comes to children.
The "quote" you cite is a false quote, those were not my words, but I understand how you make the connection. I do believe more fights and molestations will occur because there are not enough adults to monitor the schools and PREVENT them, not that the lack of staff is LEADING to them. Though it might possibly be contributing to an increase in such behavior, along with all of the other social factors these kids face. I believe this because I see it increase day after day, week after week, year after year.
The average class sizes probably vary widely right now. I think that is what the Board was talking about when they were hinting about upcoming staff movements, transfers, adjustments, or whatever they called it. In my school we have several upper grades that are maxed out at 27 or more. Third and fourth are around 23 and the lower grades are around 20. The maximum allowed sizes depend on grade level. Most of ours are up around the max.
What I am really saying (and have been for 7 years now) is that it doesn't matter what the state maximums are, or what our sizes are legally, THEY ARE TOO HIGH IF WE WANT TEST SCORES TO GO UP.
I firmly believe that if we do not lower class sizes by almost half (I know it sounds impossible) we will fail these kids no matter what other steps we take.
I caught some hell a while back when I talked about some of our students being "different" from other students and needing more help. I guess some people thought I was referring to race but I hadn't even thought of that. I was saying that, at least in my school, we have lots of children who live in poverty and they have all of the problems associated with it. For those children, especially, lower class sizes are a must. That is the only true way to "leave no child behind". Either people don't want to admit it...or they don't want to pay for it.
And, of course, I can only speak from my experiences at a North Side elementary school, no other school.
Does any of that make sense?
Friday, October 13, 2006 9:49:00 AM
Sure, it makes a lot of sense -- our schools probably do need lower class sizes than schools in other districts. It's just that SLPS doesn't have unlimited funds with which to work, and that's why we should be concerned about things like "efficiency."
Are there a lot of teachers (presumably currently in the County) who would be willing to come into the City to teach (in order to reduce class sizes)? What would it take to get them here? --BW
Friday, October 13, 2006 11:38:00 AM
I need to sue the district like irons, with all the crap I put up with being a principle at this stupid, out of order highschool they have me at this year!
Saturday, October 14, 2006 1:28:00 AM
I hope you are really not a principal as you cannot even spell principal. If you hate your job---quit!!! You are not doing any favors to the children if you are that negative.
Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:36:00 PM
YMF, with a psuedo like that and an obvious lack of writing skill, I suspect you are joking. Even substitute teachers know that principle and principal are different words (in my school). Please tell us you were being funny, not serious.
Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:17:00 PM
Bee-dub,
I seriously doubt if there are many county teachers who would come to the SLPS to teach without MAJOR changes. Also, I think a lot of our best "city" teachers are actually taking jobs in the county. What would it take to get (or keep) them here? Exactly what I am advocating for...the lowest class sizes in the entire area...and probably a little more money. Gas prices and all that make it difficult to make a living teaching in the SLPS if you have to commute very far.
If you could guarantee a class size of NO MORE than maybe 14 kids for lower grades and 18 for upper grades I think you could recruit some of the best and most dedicated teachers in the entire area to come. Many of these teachers will not come to the SLPS now because they know that they cannot make a difference unless they can concentrate intensive one-on-one attention to these students. To do that you need these drastically lower class sizes.
I know, I sound like a broken record.
Efficiency is fine, but not when it is preventing you from accomplishing your one and only purpose. An efficient school district that doesn't teach, is actually the model of inefficiency because it is not accomplishing its goal. In that case, ALL of the money you spend is wasted.
Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:40:00 PM
Several Questions:
1. Where are the video pictures that used to be on this website? I hope you folk can continue with this "show all" reporting. Those talking pictures are worth more than a thousand words.
2) Why can't those corporate people like the Post Dispatch and their corporate gangs donate to the SLPS? If they are really concerned about the schools why not donate to the cash strapped city schools? After all they did give huge sums of money to the school board campaigns of Clinkscade & Buford. (Remember that their school board majority hired Roberti, the Brooks Brothers Executive as the superintendent)
Why not financial help forthe classrooms? Add to this the fact that the 6 million dollar man Roberti milked the district three years ago of six million plus dollars. So what's left for the childlren???
Monday, October 16, 2006 1:18:00 PM
With all the focus on Irons, what about Purdy and the Riverview connection. It is well known that for years Purdy protected Jim Gant now he is busted. Purdy continues to manipulate the super to protect his good old boys. When will people come forward. Dr. Bourisaw please look at what is going on. You have an opportunity to right the wrongs that have gone on in this district for too long.
Monday, October 16, 2006 3:38:00 PM
Oh yeah everyone is whispering about Purdy and Gant ties. Ties that may not be so good.
Monday, October 16, 2006 11:09:00 PM
What is the "tie" that everyone is talking about it when it comes to Purdy and Jim Gant...PLEASE EXPLAIN
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:24:00 PM
Dear Anonymous,
Whatever "tie" exists between Gant and Purdy should not be relevant to this site. We need to focus on problems solving for the children in this district. Don't you think so?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:03:00 PM
B-Dub and Jim--
I enjoy your civil discourse.
One reason I was leery about Purdy is that he faced the problem of declining enrollment and could not stop it in the pre-Roberti days. I have no faith that he has the skills to do it now.
Jim, your answer seems to be to spend more money to hire aides, security etc., but I don't think that the voters trust the school board enough to give them more money due to the high and low profile shenanigans of the last few years. You won't see 11% turnout for a tax increase!!
Getting more students is much more of city-wide issue, how to get more people living in the city. That is one reason why I think the mayor should have some direct, clear, legal, unambiguous influence on the school board. The two are so tied together, quality of life and quality of schools, that there should be overlap of power and responsibility.
However, mayoral power is a discussion for another day/decade as the charter reform of '04? went frickin' nowhere.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:03:00 PM
Armstrong,
If I had my choice I would spend money on more CLASSROOM TEACHERS. (But I think the largest decline in numbers has come in the area of other school personnel.)
Also, I don't know how much MORE money it would be. IF we had very low class sizes, you wouldn't need as many aides, safety officers, counselors, etc. because the classroom teachers could handle more themselves. (The union is gonna love me saying that...but it is the truth)
There are other things we wouldn't need to spend money on, as well. For example, most professional development is a huge waste of time and money.
The reguired paperwork is UNBELIEVABLy costly in time and money and only serves to cover someone's ass who wants to keep their job. Teachers cannot devote themselves to teaching because they are swamped with this crap paperwork.
Most teachers are willing to go above and beyond what is required of them, they just don't have the time to do it because the class sizes are too large and some of the students are too messed up.
So, I would try eliminating all of the programs that keep being thrown at us which take up what little time we do have and go back to intensive teaching in small classroom environments.
I would also not be making efforts to keep the disruptive students in the classroom just to collect the money for them being there. In the long run it is keeping these students in with the rest that is leading to our drop in test scores, teacher and other staff burnout, low morale, etc. Therefore COSTING us money, not making us money. Also, fewer students would be so disruptive with smaller class sizes because the teacher would be better able to monitor their behaviors.
"No Child Left Behind" is leading to "Every Child Being Left Behind". It sounds heartless, but if we (as a city and society) are not going to provide alternative settings for the severely disruptive, then maybe we should abandon them and concentrate on those that can be helped. (This is NOT what I am in favor of, this is just the hard truth of what is going on).
We are stuck in MANY vicious circles when it comes to education.
Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:41:00 AM
Union basher,
"But in St. Louis administrators are too eager to get their hands on the cash cow and do not give a rip about making the district better."
Too often, too true.
Many who do not "give a rip" are from the outside. Hopefully, that is changing.
Amen on the class sizes.
Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:00:00 PM
I realize that this is slightly off-topic, but can someone tell me how much it costs to educate a non-special ed student in SLPS?
The Business Journal 'list of the week' has school budgets and enrollments. The SLPS not breaking out special ed makes it hard to compare how much bang districts are getting for their bucks.
Monday, October 23, 2006 1:03:00 PM
Armstrong,
I wish I could help you but...consider this, the kids who are the "least trouble" are the ones who often get the least attention and therefore cost the least to educate. Trouble is they often aren't receiving the education they are entitled to because the ones who need (and cost) the most are sucking up all of our resources. What is the motivation for the "best" students to remain the "best"?
Better get some alternative settings.
By the way, has anyone else noticed a steady increase in the number of altercations and fights? They added 6th grade to our school (brilliant move Mr. Williams!) Just as we suspected, the fighting and disruptions are increasing dramatically. I never understood how smaller schools are good for high school and middle school students, but larger schools are better for elementary schools. What an idiot.
Monday, October 23, 2006 9:21:00 PM
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that the least troublesome are the cheapest to educate. Poor kids are more troublesome than not so poor kids, generally speaking. SLPS has a lot of poor kids.
Private schools can educate much more cheaply because, in part, they can select their students and retain the students who want to be there.
I am just trying to get a handle on statements like, 'Webster Groves spends $X and has X% of students reading at grade level, while SLPS spends $Y per student as has Y% of students reading at grade level.'
Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:28:00 PM
Back to Purdy and Gant ties. Not good. they are saying Gant is talking about his buddies that help start his young love career. Purdy look out. Before you know it the cover out for Gant will be out.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01:00 AM
Purdy doesn't get the heat he deserves. O'Brien gets all the heat and you never hear her complain. Purdy hides behind her and then gets the new supt. to hire all his friends back. O'Brien needs to cut these fools off. O'Brien needs to admit that the new supt. won't last at the rate she is going. Speak up O'Brien you are too smart for these fools.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:05:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home